Amazing new insights on Atlantis: We might be close to solving the mystery!

reply to post by Parta


Many of the genetic studies you cited are contradictory. There are even more genetic studies on the origins of Aryans and they too reach divergent conclusions. I made this point in the "Chinese descended from Indians" thread. Thus these studies cannot really be used conclusively to establish origins.

The Aryan invasion theory is largely debunked today. I wouldn't, if I were you, waste time trying to support it. There is a vast amount of archeological evidence, astronomical evidence and other scientific evidence to show that the Aryans originated in India(Known as the Out of India theory) There is no such evidence to show they originated outside of India.

Originally posted by micpsi
Plato said that Atlantis was located west of the Pillars of Hercules, which are the Straits of Gibralta. This means that the civilisation was on an island in the Atlantic Ocean.

No theory of Atlantis that cherry-picks what Plato said in his writings and ignores what contradicts it is worthy of consideration.

Agreed. Particularly when there is a perfectly good candidate for Atlantis exactly where he said it was -- the Azores Plateau. A tectonic plate, shifted by some cataclysm (a glancing asteroid strike that ended the Younger Dryas, perhaps), and away went the large island, leaving only the mountain tops, just like he said. You might even get away with saying there were "elephants" there, if you consider they might have been a remnant of a population of mammoths.

Nope. It's called "Atlantis." Not "Indiantis."

reply to post by 2000 Yards


Where Plato speculated it was does not really matter, because we know that 9600 years ago he was not around, the Greek city of Athens did not exist and the Greeks were not yet in Greece.

So either we simply reject Atlantis as a made up myth - or we do what I have done - trace the origins of the myth. The fact that there is a virtually identical myth in the Sanskrit epic Ramayana, dated based on astromonical configurations mentioned in the text to exactly the same time as Plato's Atlantis should not go amiss on a rational person.

The fact that the Indo-Europeans originated in India based on the scientic evidence, of which Proto-Greeks were a part of should also not go amiss. The identification of Hercules with Krishna should also not go amiss.

Have you even looked at the evidence I have presented in favour of the Sri Lanka hypothesis? Yes, Sri Lanka. I never said Atlantis was India. Perhaps you should read what I have written first.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


none of those papers disagree on the fact that someone [who was a j2 haplo man with dark skin] came from the west into india. that is the opinion of the biggest names in genetics and the indian academy of sciences. archaeologists don't see it any differently. some do say that these j2 were meek and religious people bringing the mother goddess with them along with agriculture. seems many brahams are j2.

classically your aryan invasion would be of r1a haplo men. the papers all say forget that. it didn't happen.

to me the papers are talking about part of the great epigravettian [atlantean] walkabout. these folks were making beautiful art and fired ceramics, weaving, herding and providing social services by 25000bc. real nasty characters.



i wouldn't waste my time trying to say that everything ever in the world was done by indians. thats as popular and accurate as afrocentrism and white supremacy.




[edit on 18-12-2009 by Parta]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Great post Indigo! I am from the Philippines, and when we were in grade school, we were taught that there was a land bridge between China and our country which also connects to Sri Lanka. Somehow it sank, don't know the whole story. Btw, before we were "hispanized" and "americanized" we wrote in sanskrit too!

reply to post by Parta


Again, I am going to take the genetic studies with a pinch of salt. In either case the genetic studies you cited does not at all support the Aryan invasion or migration theory, instead what they suggest is genetic diversity in the Indian population. Of course maybe 250,000 years ago humans migrated from the West into India. I never claimed that humans originated in India - what I said that there is no evidence for the Aryan invasion of India in 1500BCE, as it is clear that the group called the Proto-Indo-Europeans were in India 3000BCE and prior i.e., the Indus is a vedic civilisation.

The reason I am pointing this out is not for the purpose of establishing some kind of Indian superiority, but to show that the Proto-Greeks were actually in India at the time and therefore their memories, culture, religion, philosophy has origins here. Therefore, if Atlantis is a real memory, it is more than likely also derived from the Indian culture. Indeed, I have demonstrated that an identical myth to that of Atlantis can be found in the Ramayana epic.

You should also note that I said that the Lankans were the one that that had a huge domination of the world - not the Indians. The word "Indians" in this time did not really refer to any particular race. As it is clear at that time India had a diverse amount of people living in India, and they are mentioned by name in the histories. It was a multicultural society in the same way UK or USA is a multicultural society today.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by boniknik


Thanks for that! I especially found your remark that you were speaking Sanskrit before the hispanic period very interesting. There is no doubt about how prevalent Sanskrit was in the ancient world throughout Europe and Asia in the 3000BCE timeframe. The fact is, it should be, becase we know the Indian civilisation were seafaring and had signifcant contact with various parts of the world at the time. They were also the largest and most advanded civilisation of the ancient world, so it is only logical that they would have so much influence and power.

I think Western scholars in particular do not at all want to admit how powerful the Indians were in the ancient world and instead want to glorify the Sumerians and the Egyptians because they seek their origins in them. They are very disdainful of the suggestion that a non-western civilisation and asiatic civilisation like India could claim a vast share of the history of development of civilisation. Unfortunately, they will simply have to swallow their pride and admit it, because the evidence is not lying. Let us look at some facts:

Fact: Indians did have a huge global footprint based on the archeaological evidence and the shared history around the world. And the fact that we can see Indian-looking natives as far as the Americas, Indonesia and Australia cannot go amiss.
Fact: The oldest of the Indo-European languages is Sanskrit, which is turn has the oldest literature. The entire history of the Indo-European people centers on Sanskrit. There was no such thing as "Indo-European" in the West before the discovery of Sanskrit.
Fact: The Sumerians and the Egyptians record the domination of the Indians in the ancient world, and evidence shows that India was a huge exporter of goods to these civilisations.
Fact: Indians have had a massive impact on Europe and Asia. In Europe we can trace the pagan religions to Hinduism(Many prominent scholars in the field of Celtic studies for example, such as Peter Ellis, trace the Celtics to the Indians) In Asia, the massive domination of Buddhism cannot be ignored.
Fact: Indians and Chinese have dominated the world economy right up until the 18th century, even during the peaks of the Roman empire and Islamic empire. They were the main exporters of goods to the world right up until then.

Western scholars are simply going to have to admit that they are a relatively recent civilisation compared to the Asians. The Asians have dominated history from as far as we can tell. The western star only began to rise in the 18th century and onwards, and even then it was due to Asian influence. Clearly the academic world of today is dominated by Western-centric history and attitudes, and that is going to have to change. Western scholarship only until a few decades ago considered all Asians to be primitive, uncivilised before they were civilised by the West.

It is really interesting just how much outrage is provoked at an asiatic origin of Atlantis or Proto-Greeks, and yet if you propose an Atlantic origin or a European origin then it is fine. I think the Westerner, of which I am one as well, is going to have to deal with their anxities and insecurities about Asians eventually.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Very interesting reading. I wonder if computer science could construct a map of the earth taking into account continental drift over 9000 years so we can see just how close Australia was to southern India. The two could kind of fit together if close enough.

Of course this would not account for a large continent that sank, but it could give more clues where to look for one.

Do we have any ancient maps that could help prove this theory?

reply to post by Indigo_Child


A common mistake is looking for a huge Atlantian continent due to its size being described by Plato as "an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together combined".
Quite valid arguments have been made positing that the ISLAND of Atlantis proper was of more modest size with the ATLANTIAN MARITIME EMPIRE covering the larger area.

In his highly convincing & well researched " Gateway To Atlantis" researcher Andrew Collins presents detailed evidence placing the CENTER of the Atlantian Empire/ATLANTIS ITSELF as Cuba in its larger form before the sea level rose 100+ meters 10,000-12,000 before present.

The undisputed fact that the sea inundated the worlds ancient coastlines and innumerable islands has provided the ammunition for claims of "Atlantis" to be made in wildly disparate locations.
Thousands of centers of antediluvian civilization now lie below the sea in an "Atlantian fashion", thus we have competing locations for Atlantis from the Med to the Azores to the Bahamas to Sri Lanka and further afield. They are all "Atlantean" but probably not Atlantis itself.

Even today a huge proportion of urban centers worldwide are located on the coastal fringes.
Just imagine if the sea level rose 100+Meters now. How many cities and islands would be lost beneath the waves forever to become the subjects of myth and legend far in the future?

I strongly urge all interested members to read "Gateway To Atlantis".

[edit on 19-12-2009 by virricocha]

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
So if your trying to find evidence of something 10,000 years old !! good luck with that.

I wouldn't be so quick to disregard that possibility.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7499f2e5d6f.jpg[/atsimg]
Gobekli Tepe

However (are you sitting down?), the Turkish site, called Gobekli Tepe, is 12,000 years old. That is 7,000 years older than Stonehenge and Newgrange and 7,500 years older than the pyramids of Giza. Which means that civilization began long, long before we previously believed, even before the invention of agriculture.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by boniknik

 

I think Western scholars in particular do not at all want to admit how powerful the Indians were in the ancient world

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

indiacentrists should listen to indian scientists so they don't sound so silly to everyone but themselves.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

So either we simply reject Atlantis as a made up myth - or we do what I have done - trace the origins of the myth. The fact that there is a virtually identical myth in the Sanskrit epic Ramayana, dated based on astromonical configurations mentioned in the text to exactly the same time as Plato's Atlantis should not go amiss on a rational person.

Again, "virtually identical" to what?

There exists no Greek Atlantis myth or oral tradition. None. Nothing even close.

The fact that the Indo-Europeans originated in India based on the scientic evidence, of which Proto-Greeks were a part of should also not go amiss.

Do you know who the "proto Greeks" were? They were not Indo-Aryan.

Even today's Greek population has too few haplotypes in common with native Indians, thus indicating that they are not from India.

On the contrary, both groups originated from a population near the Caspian Sea.

You can argue with biology all you want, but you won't win.

The identification of Hercules with Krishna should also not go amiss.

Like I said before, there were extensive contacts beteen India and Greece in the ancient past. This would quite easily explain any similarities between the two belief systems (and there aren't many.)

Harte

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Very interesting reading. I wonder if computer science could construct a map of the earth taking into account continental drift over 9000 years so we can see just how close Australia was to southern India

Yes. The answer is that they're a few meters closer. Not miles. Not kilometers. Meters. Sea levels were rising back then, too.

Of course this would not account for a large continent that sank, but it could give more clues where to look for one.

Nor would it account for the rock columns. There were land bridges and sections of dryer land, but that was much further back.

Do we have any ancient maps that could help prove this theory?

No... and they weren't very good mapmakers back then. Just look at any old map of the world to see how far off they got things.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
So if your trying to find evidence of something 10,000 years old !! good luck with that.

I wouldn't be so quick to disregard that possibility.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7499f2e5d6f.jpg[/atsimg]
Gobekli Tepe

I believe that IntastellaBurst was referring to finding something 10,000+ years old UNDERWATER.

I really wish that more information was available, but your theory is well laid out and thought provoking! Thanks for the insight.

Maybe it was a giant Vimana? I had an old holy/insane man approach me while I was on a spirit-quest this summer. He walked up to me and said:

"Okay, so this time around, it's YOUR paradigm, okay? You can do whatever you want to, it's fine by me, with ONE exception. No more floating continents. But anything under a parsec is cool."

Just thought tghis may be of interest....?

www.disclose.tv...

Again, "virtually identical" to what?

Virtually identical to Plato's account of Atlantis. It suggests he did not make it up, but was remembering something.

Even today's Greek population has too few haplotypes in common with native Indians, thus indicating that they are not from India.

On the contrary, both groups originated from a population near the Caspian Sea.

You can argue with biology all you want, but you won't win.

The Greek population of today and the Indian population of today is not the same as the Greek population of 3000BCE and Indian population of 3000BCE. I question the reliability of genetic evidence to be able to give certain information that goes back that far.

In any case even if it true that Greeks and Indians are genetically diferent, it still does not mean that they were not togeter in India in 3000BCE. Indian records menion them as together.

The idea that both the Greeks and the Indians originated from a population near the Caspian sea is based on obsolete research. New research shows that the Indo-European group originated in India. Known as Out of India theory.

Like I said before, there were extensive contacts beteen India and Greece in the ancient past. This would quite easily explain any similarities between the two belief systems (and there aren't many.)

Harte

In recorded history prior to the attempted invasion by Alexander, Indians and Greeks were not in direct contact. However, they had contact under Persia. Nonetheless, the origns of Greek gods and goddesses, Presocatic philosopy, including Plato and Aristotle all have older Indian precursors. This suggests more than just limited contact in Persia, it suggests Greeks have inherited their entire culture from the Indians. This make sense, because Greek language itself is traceable to Sanskrit.

I invite you to go and do your research on the similarities between Greeks and Indians

Compare Greek Philosophy to Indian Philosophy
Compare Greek medicine to Indian Medicine
Compare Greek language to Indian language
Compare Greek myths to Indian myths

The similarities are great. Moreover, we can find older Indian precursors for each Greek counterpart, thus showing that the Greeks have inherited everything from the Indians. This is not surprising, because the Greeks were once living in India. It my contention that they also inherited the legend of Atlantis from them.

The Indo-European groups left India in a series of migrations during the decline of the Indus valey, this included the Greeks. Hence why we find most Indo-Europeans appearing around that time.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Where Plato speculated it was does not really matter, because we know that 9600 years ago he was not around, the Greek city of Athens did not exist and the Greeks were not yet in Greece.

You need to read up on Plato's Critias and Timaeus. The only source of literature that mentions Atlantis by name (although there is a wealth of other literature, including the Bible, that tells of long-dead civilizations).

It doesn't matter that the Greeks didn't really exist as such at the time of Atlantis. Nobody said Plato personally experienced it, including himself. We're talking about the story. And Plato clearly says that he got the story from the poet/historian Solon. Solon, in turn, got it from a group of priests in what would eventually become Alexandria, in Egypt.

I personally don't find it too terribly ridiculous that a myth or legend stored in one of the Alexandrian libraries managed to survive by word of mouth long after any documentary evidence of it was destroyed. That's what happens when you destroy libraries.

So we don't have to worry about who came from where or was decended from who else. Is it plausible for Solon to have heard a story from some Egyptian priests, and Plato's recollection of it (which may or may not be entirely accurate) is the only detailed version to survive in some form? I think it's plausible. Did it happen exactly the way Plato says? Don't know.

Of course, there's no other real good evidence that Atlantis even existed. But it was a long, long time ago, and the civilization might not have been as large as it later became in legend, and it was pretty hammered by volcanoes and tsunamis and being dropped to the sea bottom over the course of a couple days. Finding hard evidence of it would be difficult even if it was still on dry land. Maybe someday, though.

But there's no need to go traipsing off to India or Antarctica or Japan to find it. The best place to look is right where Plato said, and shouldn't be discounted unless it becomes completely implausible. And knowing what we know now about the Atlantic Ridge and mega-disasters such as tsunamis and asteroid strikes (another thing Plato obtusely mentions), the notion that Atlantis might have been where the Azores are now has actually become more plausible over the last several years.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by 2000 Yards]

reply to post by 2000 Yards


Thank you for that. If Plato got it from Egyptians, then why does he mention that Atlantis attacked Athens? Clearly he is describing Greek history still, even if it with the help of Egyptian sources.

Interestingly, the Egyptians also have an Indian connection. There are quite a lot of scholars that say that Egyptians descended from the Indians.
I know it sounds a bit tedious, how I suggest everything from Indo-Europeans, Australian Aborigines, Americans, Egyptians are descended from the Indians, but this is because Indians dominated the world in ancient times. They were the largest civilisation of the ancient world, much bigger than Egypt and Sumera combined, and much more technologically advanced and they had with contact with various places in the world. If there was an advanced civilisation like Atlantis, the chances are we would find it in Indian records. And we do. The Ramayana records a massive continent in the Indian ocean, that is a naval power and has colonies all over the world, that is at war with India and that sinks overnight due its misdeeds.

And the clincher, the astronomical evidence shows that the Ramayana took place exactly 9600 years. The description is virtually identical. Let us summarize:

1. Massive continent that sinks overnight due to misdeeds
2. Naval power
3. Colonies all over the world(Africa, Europe, Asia etc)
4. 9600 years ago

Do you know of any other source that can match these descriptions?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Athena may be one possible link in the puzzle, when you consider she is likely based on Inanna

Inanna is also known in Cabala as Lilith the first supposed woman before Eve. As well as she is also Athena. She is also Roman Goddess Minerva as well and the owls around her are the "Bohemian Grove" Owls. Because owls are silent when they fly! Also note that the Minerva degree one obtains is the Inanna degree.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The fact the Greek gods are traceable to the Hindu gods also cannot be a coincidence. Hercules = Krishna; Dionysis = Shiva; Athena = Saraswati; Indra = Zeus.

In Plato's account, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hermes" & those two pillars are the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar. In which are the Mediterranean Sea that separates Spain from Morocco & at those two points are the twin pillars of hermes. Also Hermes was taught by Zoroaster the magi & Chaldean/Historical Babylonia, This is where the magicians of magic came from btw. And as for Hermes this was Cush as Cush was also known as Thoth and mercury as well, As for Cush's son Nimrod he was known as Jupiter, Osiris, and Mars. Notice how Atlantis was Babylon when the continents were as one before lucifer/babylon being struck down, Hence forth changing all of the languages of the people.

Also note Krishna is not the only blue man to ingest silver to obtain his effects.

"Real-life ‘Blue Guy’ shrugs off his skin color"

It is entirely possible that Plato’s account of Atlantis was just a story with many different legends and myths from many different heritages, that he mixed together to form his story.
I am sure there was more than one story of superior naval powers that had disappeared beneath the oceans, but this does not necessarily mean they were all the same people or even at the same time.
It is possible that if there were such stories, that Plato put them all together to make it about one place he termed Atlantis.
If this is the case it is possible all sunken cities that are found are in a way “Atlantis” according to Plato’s account.

This is just a thought, and I have no evidence to back it up, but I thought I would share this possible idea.

Here is another thought, say our current culture disappeared and say 1000 years later there was found scripts from movies, and they took them as historical writings, and say Star Wars was one such script to survive, do you think the people who found it would be looking for the planets from the movie? Or say Godzilla was a script that remained, do you suppose they would be looking for remnants of the giant lizard?